Answers to Review Questions and Problems
2. Guardianship Situation: If a person is subject to a guardianship, a determination has been made by a court that the guardian will step in to the place of the person for purposes of entering into contracts. Therefore, either the contract is void (if adjudged insane) or voidable. Further, the doctrine of necessaries applies to minors, not those with mental incapacity. Bill would not be liable for the note. 
3. Youngblood Situation: The right to disaffirm irrespective of the fairness of the contract and regardless of whether the adult knew they were dealing with a minor. However, when Youngblood stole the car from Blakensoop, Youngblood had NOT exercised the right to disaffirm. Therefore, the contract was still valid and ownership was ...view middle of the document...
If the service is not deemed a necessary, then the minor can disaffirm the contract even though it is fully executed and the minor need not pay for the fee. [2, 3]
6. Coin Situation: Under well-established principles, a bilateral mistake exists if both parties are mistaken as to the same assumption. Both the seller and the buyer thought the coin was minted in San Francisco. This was a bilateral mistake, and this mistake had a material effect on the exchange of performances. The mistake was one of fact, not value. 
7. Low Bid Situation: While a unilateral mistake of one party generally does not allow a contract to be reformed, an exception exists where a mathematical error in a bid occurs and the other party will not be materially impacted. In the problem, the error in the bid does not affect the status of Brawner Contracting having the low bid. The problem suggests an honest error, too. Reformation of the contract is a proper remedy. 
8. Home Buyer Situation: Both parties did not know of the existence of the stability hazard. A bilateral mistake requires both parties to be mistaken regarding the same issue. Rescission is proper. 
a. “gold mine” location: Not a misrepresentation, because clearly was a statement of opinion…often phrased as “puffery.”
b. “big car…big home: statement: Again, appears as puffery and not a misrepresentation.
c. “steer”: Same, puffery.
d. “right store” statement: Also puffery.
e. “not going to lose money” statement: This statement comes closest to being one coming from an expert asserting a factual statement. A court may well find Carver has crossed the line of puffery and based on his superior position has made an actionable misrepresentation. 
10. Data Processing Situation: The buyer was aware of the specifications for the machine. Moreover, the statement of the sales representative that the machine would be adequate is a statement of opinion. As such, it is not an actionable misstatement.